Award issues: How a city commission vote to honor some residents may have been privately changed and who influenced the decision

Clouds of controversy are hanging over a city commission after its chair allegedly chose to work behind the scenes to change a decision originally approved unanimously without objections by the entire commission. The move may have violated meetings rules.

The city’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) handed out its annual Community Service Awards Monday evening. However, the awards presented did not reflect those that were approved by the Commission on Jan. 8.

Sources told The Post that an award for one individual was rescinded after complaints about the person were shared with Commission Chair Hugo Loyola, who then reportedly decided along with others to retract the award. That action essentially changed the full commission’s vote.

The actions taken after the complaints surfaced have been the topic of heated discussions involving not only Loyola but members of city government and private citizens. None of the discussions and the decision that followed occurred in an open public meeting, a possible violation of The Brown Act, which governs how the HRC must conduct its business.

A month-long investigation by The Post, which reviewed public records and private communications between some of those involved, shows how much scrambling was happening behind the scenes to determine what to do after the complaints were made.

Timeline of events

At its Jan. 8 meeting, the nine-member HRC approved bestowing the Community Service Awards without objections. The names of honorees were supposed to be publicly named only via a city press release. However, names of some of those chosen for the honor were revealed on social media before the city could issue its official statement.

Upon learning the names, some members of the public chose to level accusations against one of the approved honorees privately to Loyola, who, instead of seeking the advice of the city attorney or city manager, or sharing that information with the full commission, reportedly asked instead that the city delay releasing the complete list of honorees so that he could look into the matter.

“Please hold off the press release for the HRC community service awards,” Loyola wrote in an email to the city’s communications director dated Jan. 12. “I have just received a serious complaint about one of the honorees and I’m gathering the evidence. We might have to rescind a nomination.”

After getting the news release delayed, sources told The Post that Loyola then set about negotiating with those who brought the complaints and some in city government, among others, hoping to arrive at a compromise with their assistance.

In an email to The Post on Feb. 8, one of the people with knowledge of the situation shared what reportedly took place behind the scenes.

According to that person, community members privately provided the Human Rights Commission’s chair with what they claimed was evidence of their concerns over one already approved honoree. Following what was characterized as “delicate negotiations with the city,” it was agreed by all involved that the award would not be presented to the individual.

A city spokesperson could not say who at City Hall was involved in the “delicate negotiations” or whether other citizens could privately negotiate the reversal of votes they disagreed with.

With time running out before the awards ceremony, and having been told there were no options left for the HRC, one commissioner tried to have the matter discussed via the only remaining method. On Jan. 19, HRC Vice Chair David Vignolo asked the City Council to review the Commission’s unanimous decision.

“Considering our inability to hold a Special Meeting per the City Attorney, and after much thought, I am formally making this request to the Council,” Vignolo wrote in an email. “Unfortunately, as confirmed by the City Attorney, there appears to be no mechanism for the entire Commission to reconsider its action of Jan. 8 (which was a unanimous decision of all Commissioners present) before the award ceremony on Feb. 12.”

The City Council chose not to deliberate on the matter. The decision went into effect, nonetheless.

Prior commission controversy

Controversy involving the Human Rights Commission is not new. In 2022, a group of residents – Friends of Frank Bogert (FFB) – sued the city over a decision to remove a statue of former Mayor Frank Bogert from in front of City Hall.

The group claimed a report considered by the HRC – which at the time was chaired by current Mayor Pro Tem Ron deHarte – was riddled with false information impugning Bogert. They maintained the report should not have been used when the Commission recommended the statue’s removal to the City Council.

The group also requested that the HRC make the author of controversial portions of the report public, claiming that those portions had been plagiarized. That effort failed.

The group’s lawsuit, which sought to prevent removal of the statue, didn’t advance through the courts. However, its members continue to request that the HRC correct or retract the report.

“Friends of Frank Bogert has attended a number of HRC meetings, and on two occasions, the HRC has voted to add the report to its agenda for discussion of our concerns,” wrote Doug Evans in a Jan. 7 email to The Post. “The report was never added to an agenda, and we have asked for an explanation, and we have not had any response.”

Added another FFB member, in comments prepared to read to the Commission at a recent meeting: “Even though none of you current commissioners wrote the report, and some weren’t even on the Commission when it was produced, you still have an obligation to adhere to the Mission Statement by correcting or retracting the report. 

“The HRC’s credibility and purpose can be questioned if you continue [to] not do so.”

© 2024 Valley Voice Media

---